Would you lose $4000 a year to work from home? (2025)

Can you put a price on flexibility? For thousands of workers, it seems like the answer is yes, and it’s one they’re happy to pay.

When the Coalition revealed that it would introduce a work-from-home ban for public servants if elected (and subsequently reversed the plan), they kicked off yet another instalment in the ongoing debate around workplace flexibility and what the future of work should look like in Australia.

Since 2020 and the onset of COVID-19, millions of us have worked at home in full-time and part-time capacities. Perks of working remotely include extra sleep-in time, no commuting, being able to work in tracksuit pants, saving money on things like lunches and parking, carrying out domestic chores like hanging out laundry or getting a head start on dinner, and miraculously being at home when Australia Post delivers your long-awaited parcel.

There are certainly downsides, too. Research shows that in-person contact with colleagues can be hugely beneficial in building team morale and increasing an employee’s sense of purpose within the company. Also, office gossip is pretty good.

But according to a new report from the Committee for Economic Development of Australia released last month, this flexibility comes with a price tag – $4,400 per year, to be exact.

The CEDA report, based on Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia data between 2017 and 2023, found that the national average salary of $75,665 dropped to $71,276 where they worked either entirely remotely, or in a hybrid mode between their home and the office.

Every single person who worked in an industry or role where flexibility was not an option, lamented not having it.

That’s a loss of $84.60 per week on average. While you might save that by not having to go into the office, it feels like the kind of fine print detail that should be negotiated before any contracts are signed, or at the very least, acknowledged by employers.

When I first heard the Coalition’s plan to wind back work freedoms in March, I was genuinely surprised that they were shocked by just how strong and swift the pushback was.

Though it was clearly stated that the return to work mandate would be directed only at federal public servants, it’s understandable why so many feared that this would simply be the first step in a longer-term plan to force everyone back into offices.

Among the loudest cohort condemning the plan was women, who still do the vast majority of unpaid domestic labour and childcare at home and thus massively benefit from increased flexibility.

(It also didn’t help that when this was pointed out, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton responded by saying that for women who couldn’t - or wouldn’t - be in the office five days a week, there are “plenty of job sharing arrangements”.)

In my mind, perhaps the most significant question all of this raises is: Are Australians willing to earn a little bit less each year if, in exchange, you were given more freedom to work from where you want?

To try and find an answer, I turned to the She’s on the Money community. With 87 per cent of the podcast’s listeners being women aged 18 to 34, this is a demographic this issue speaks directly to, and who would be seriously impacted if any changes to policies were to occur.

When I asked via our Instagram platform to choose whether flexibility or a higher salary was more important, 19,685 people voted for flexibility. Almost a third fewer (7,870 people) said they would prioritise earning more over being able to work remotely.

Wanting to know more about what the dream work arrangement looks like to the young working women of Australia, I then asked what their ideal employment set up looked like.

To this question, 80 per cent (24,094) of respondents said a hybrid model of the office and home was the best choice, while 16 per cent said they’d like to work remotely full-time (4,896). Just 1,133 people (4 per cent) said working in an office full-time was the best-case scenario.

Things really got interesting, though, when we got down to nitty-gritty questions about money, and where specific amounts were applied. When specifically asked “Would you give up $84 a week to work from home full-time?” a whopping 17,753 people said yes – 77 per cent of respondents to the question.

Somewhat paradoxically, when asked what kind of salary cut they would be willing to take in exchange for greater flexibility, 65 per cent of respondents to the question (17,234) said they wouldn’t be willing to accept any cut at all.

Loading

A further 28 per cent of respondents (7440) said they would accept 5 to 10 per cent, which falls in line with CEDA’s findings, while only 3 per cent of respondents (774 people), said they would be willing to part with “whatever it takes” because they don’t want to go back.

In the hours after asking these questions, my inbox was flooded with responses that were as varied as they were astute. One woman described flexible arrangements as “life changing for families,” while another said that working in an office brings in other economic activity and, as such, being paid less to work from home makes sense.

A third called the topic of conversation “a generational battleground”, while another said she thinks offering hybrid arrangements should be “the norm” now, adding “the thought of losing it is terrifying.”

But the one unifying, consistent response was one that perfectly summarises the issue. Every single person who worked in an industry or role where flexibility was not an option (in particular teachers and healthcare workers), lamented not having the option and said they wished that there was a way to have access to the greater choice it brings.

And that’s the whole problem with this debate. Sure, there will always be a small minority who want to work entirely from home, a few who prefer the office, and a healthy majority who want a more even mix.

But it’s an option that no longer feels negotiable, even if it comes with a price tag.

Victoria Devine is an award-winning retired financial adviser, bestselling author and host of Australia’s No.1 finance podcast, She’s on the Money. She is also the founder and director of Zella Money.

• Advice given in this article is general in nature and is not intended to influence readers’ decisions about investing or financial products. They should always seek their own professional advice that takes into account their own personal circumstances before making any financial decisions.

Expert tips on how to save, invest and make the most of your money delivered to your inbox every Sunday. Sign up for our Real Money newsletter.